Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Photomerge: Is this REALLY all Photoshop can do?

Nov 18, 2012 4:14 AM

I tried to use photomerge in Photoshop, and the results were ridiculous.  I have a friend who has an iPhone, and I have an Android.  He uses a simple panaroma tool on the iPhone, and I downloaded a photomerge app for the Android.  The results were incredible.

 

I took a bunch of snapshots to see how Photoshop could handle it, and this is the laughable result: http://oi49.tinypic.com/de0get.jpg  (notice all the banding).

 

First photoshop removes thumbnails, then no one can properly use the new oil painting filter, and then simple FREE apps for mobile phones outperform Photoshop.

 

Come on Adobe -- get it sorted.

 
Replies
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 5:34 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    There are so many dedicated application for stitching images together some free and others with modest cost. Improving photomerge to compete with those would be a very costly undertaking and would not improve Adobe bottom line.  The bottom line seams to be what Adobe is all about these days

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 6:03 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    Photoshop CS2 Help says:

    "Taking pictures for use with Photomerge:

    Your source photographs play a large role in panoramic compositions. To avoid problems, follow these guidelines

    when taking pictures for use with Photomerge:

    Overlap images sufficiently Images should overlap by approximately 25% to 40%. If the overlap is less,

    Photomerge may not be able to automatically assemble the panorama. However, keep in mind that the images

    shouldn’t overlap too much. If images overlap by 70% or more, it can be difficult to work with them, and

    blending may not be as effective. Try to keep the individual photos at least somewhat distinct from each other."

     

    Adam, IMHO your photos are overlapping far too much.

     

    Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 6:41 AM   in reply to Gernot Hoffmann

    There more to it than just overlap . Exposure setting focal length and how well the lens is rotated about its nodel point play a big roll.  Programs like PS Photomerge and Microsoft ICE can not even handle image taken with fisheye lens. A Fisheye lens is ideal for stitching spherical panoramas for you only need five images. You need a program like AutoPano Pro to do stitching well. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/5987164

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 6:45 AM   in reply to Gernot Hoffmann

    It appears you used 11 images in the panorama, but I think you can do it with only using 3 of the images. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 6:50 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    Aside from all the theoretical ponderings about overlap and fisheye distortion, there's distinct vignetting in your images which could easily explain the striping effect. The apps on the phone may be able to compensate for that using additional live information, but PS can't.

     

    Mylenium

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 6:55 AM   in reply to JJMack

    Improving photomerge to compete with those would be a very costly undertaking and would not improve Adobe bottom line.

     

    Don't really agree. It simply happened what always happens at Adobe. I distinctly remember those CS3 demo sessions where Photomerge was touted as the second coming and then nobody seemed to care because other features took precedence and fixes to this particular tool were put off cycle after cycle. Nothing unusual so far, but the bitter irony here is that with content aware tech in PS Adobe have everything at hand that should allow them to improve Photomerge as well. Well, at least in a way that avoids these crude errors.

     

    Mylenium

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 7:14 AM   in reply to Mylenium

    IMO Adobe should not let anything take precedence over bug fixing and bug fixing should be made a high priority however I don't think we will see that happening in my lifetime.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,514 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 9:31 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    Mine doesn't do that.  It always does a nice job blending the skies.  Some quick examples of varying exposure levels across the exposure set...

     

    Pano2.jpg

     

    Pano1.jpg

     

    It appears that in your image some of the basic features (such as vignetting reduction) were not selected by you or did not work.

     

    What parameters did you choose when stitching?  Did you ask it to blend the images and to correct Vignetting?

     

    What kind of input are you providing?  Raw files?

     

    Do you have plenty of scratch disk space and other computer resources?  Photomerge is intensive.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 9:58 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    And then there are results like these:

    First PTAssempler stitch

    PTAssembler.jpg

    View it with a  pano viewer http://www.mouseprints.net/old/BigBen/PTViewer.html

    Second Photomerge results

    Photomerge.png

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 9:50 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    Come on Adobe -- get it sorted.

    You seem to have made some mistake in chosing the appropriate settings (as Noel indicates) but seem to be quick to blame someone else.

    Could you please post (lores versions of) the original images or at least describe your procedure exactly?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 10:23 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    Did you check »Blend Images Together« in the Photomerge dialog?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,514 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 10:44 AM   in reply to JJMack

    With all due respect, JJ, that Photomerge can be confused about where images overlap doesn't seem to be pertinent here.

     

    I understand that you'd like to see Photoshop do even better.  That's like Hot Dogs and Apple Pie.  But it may not yet be appropriate to pile onto Adobe about this particular issue in this thread; we don't know whether the original poster has system problems or has just simply operated the software badly.

     

    It's entirely possible the expectation here is that Photoshop is a "big button" program that just automates everything without having to engage the brain of the user, and we know very well that's not true.  It's a professional app that can produce best-in-show results in the hands of an adept user.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 19, 2012 5:11 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel I fully agree.  There is no good reason for Adobe to want to compete with stitching applications.  Photomergs works quit well when image are taken with normal lenses with stitching in mind. Where all images are exposed with same manual settings with good overlap and shot from the same point.

     

    It would require a lot of work or a buyout to compete. Ether way it would cost Adobe a lot and not improve their bottom line. There is not that much of a marker for spherical panoramas.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 11:32 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    It's entirely possible the expectation here is that Photoshop is a "big button" program that just automates everything without having to engage the brain of the user,

    Nicely put.

    I’m curious if the original poster will get back to this thread to concede that his criticism was unfounded.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,514 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 19, 2012 5:20 AM   in reply to c.pfaffenbichler

    Adam also generalizes, "no one can properly use the new oil painting filter".  I haven't seen problems with that either.

     

    LionessOilPaint.jpg

     

    I wonder how many people go through life thinking stuff just "doesn't work" when the stuff just requires a bit more care or finesse to use, and maybe a better cared-for computer system...

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 19, 2012 6:44 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Goin for some kinda abstract expressionism effect eh?

     

    AFA the original post, I've never really used the photo merge route but use auto align and auto blend in CS3,5 and now 6 fairly frequently and I'm satisfied with the results. I think image prep is important as always to the end result (how old school!). I've also been getting aquainted with GigaPan Stitch along with their robot head. So far so good. I guess I fail on the mobile pano apps in that my cell is only used for actual phone calls (and the occasional reluctant text)...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 19, 2012 7:19 AM   in reply to TLL...

    "It's buggy until I understand it."  :+)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 20, 2012 1:49 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    So what are the exact settings you used (which would seem more relevant to the issue at hand than the length of your Photoshop experience)?

    Could you provide the images for others to test?

     

    if you took 7 or 8 HD images and tried to merge them

    Do you mean HDR?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 20, 2012 2:00 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    I’m not a professional photographer but my camera creates 4000px by 3000px images and I have not had such issues with Photomerge yet.

    Edit: Just did a test with ten images (4000x3000) and the result seems OK.

     

    You still have not verified which exact settings you chose when the faulty results occured.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 20, 2012 4:52 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    Adam,

     

    an actual test, using CS2:

    Nikon D5100

    f=55mm

     

    Pan-5-1300.jpg

     

    5 Images, automatically merged, total size (19464 x 3796) pixels.

    Levels

    Downsampled (1300 x 254) pixels

    Smart Sharpen

    JPEG

     

    For wide angle shots without lens correction and /or queer perspective

    situations it's necessary to prepare the automatic stitching by  manual

    adjustments and the result will not be as convincing.

     

    Resumed: there may be better programs, but PhS - even my old CS2 -

    works in certain limits reasonably.

     

    Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

     

    Message was edited again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 20, 2012 5:03 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    As mentioned, the free mobile apps can create a panorama in seconds and it's seamless.

    Well, you don’t seem inclined to state which Photomerge settings you used, but maybe you can tell what pixel dimensions the final images that app would produce have?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 20, 2012 6:11 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    AdamDux wrote:

     

    Please take a series of 6 or 7 HD photos (3264x2448 for example) and let me know how it turns out.  As mentioned, the free mobile apps can create a panorama in seconds and it's seamless.

     

    I'm not interested in 72dpi 800x600 goofy images.

    OK here is a Photomerge of 12 5MP portrait orientated images that is 360 from the top of the mount no sharpening no touch up or cropping. Please post an Image from your Android and iPhone the show something it this range 17256Px by 2689 Px some where like 57" x 9" at 300 dpi 6MB. Needs to be a link open in a new window or tab.  Looking forward to seeing what your phones can do have you posted any full size example Please post one taken in portrait orientation for better panorama height.

    http://www.mouseprints.net/old/dpr/Photomerg_Panorama.jpg

     

    Here are 6 image processed with better software and some cover ups because boats were rocking.

    http://www.mouseprints.net/old/dpr/Mariner.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 20, 2012 6:20 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    Well, gee, if Noel can get it to work, I guess I don't know what I am talking about.

    If Noel can get it to work then your claim

    no one can properly use the new oil painting filter

    seems incorrect, doesn’t it?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 20, 2012 6:43 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    Please take a series of 6 or 7 HD photos (3264x2448 for example) and let me know how it turns out.

    Seems to work fine; the source images are 4000px by 3000px and the result is over 19000px wide, but that would still need some clipping.

    In any case I used »Auto« for Layout and »Blend Images Together« was checked.

    photomergeTest.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 20, 2012 6:51 AM   in reply to b2martin_a

    It appears you used 11 images in the panorama, but I think you can do it with only using 3 of the images.

    Thats what I was thinking. Has the OP tried it with fewer images?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,514 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 20, 2012 8:40 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    AdamDux wrote:

     

    c.pfaffenbichler:    

    Please take a series of 6 or 7 HD photos (3264x2448 for example) and let me know how it turns out.  As mentioned, the free mobile apps can create a panorama in seconds and it's seamless.

     

    I'm not interested in 72dpi 800x600 goofy images.

     

    Noel:  Do the same.

     

    "HD photos (3264x2448 for example)"?  My images are 6144 x 4096 pixels at 16 bits/channel, Adam. I don't work with little stuff.

     

    The wider panorama I showed above was from nine such images.  Here's the result just after Photomerge completed, done with Cylindrical and Auto settings.  Note the pixel dimensions listed for the stitching result.

     

    FilesSelected.jpg

     

    ScreenGrab_11_20_2012_104951.jpg

     

    ScreenGrab_11_20_2012_104552.jpg

     

     

    Here are another couple of examples, including one that contains a lot of water, which is traditionally difficult for stitching software.

     

    FilesSelected2.jpg

     

    PhotomergeSettings2.jpg

     

    ScreenGrab_11_20_2012_105633.jpg

     

    ScreenGrab_11_20_2012_105907.jpg

       

    ScreenGrab_11_20_2012_110224.jpg

     

    -

     

    FilesSelected3.jpg

     

    ScreenGrab_11_20_2012_110728.jpg

     

     

     

    Something's specifically wrong on your end if you're not getting good blending.  Photoshop is clearly capable.  Either you have a resource shortage or you're not using the right settings, or maybe your vignetting is so egregious it can't compensate (which you can fix by using appropriate settings in Camera Raw).

     

    As far as I can see it's not important whether you have too much overlap.

     

    Do you have literally hundreds of GB free on your scratch drive?  Photomerge has been known to use that much.  It used 91GB doing the above.

     

    C:\TEMP>dir "photoshop temp*.*"
    Volume in drive C is C - NoelC4 SSD
    Volume Serial Number is 00ED-C11E

     

    Directory of C:\TEMP

     

    11/20/2012  11:25 AM    68,719,476,736 Photoshop Temp267498815588
    11/20/2012  11:27 AM    22,401,777,664 Photoshop Temp269252225588


                  2 File(s) 91,121,254,400 bytes
                  0 Dir(s)  941,183,279,104 bytes free

     

    I don't disagree with you that Photoshop should put up an appropriate error message if it aborts or degrades its operation because it runs short of resources.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,995 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 21, 2012 6:06 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    Adam where are your high resolution Phone Panorama images???!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 21, 2012 6:09 AM   in reply to JJMack

    "high resolution Phone Panorama images"

     

    <snirk>

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 22, 2012 2:11 AM   in reply to AdamDux

    I still think a user error is the most likely explanation for the issue.

    And the original poster (edited) not being forthcoming with certain information or the images themselves for testing, aside from the »tone« he took, does nothing to discourage that suspicion.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points